113. So far as these contra-normal expedients - expedients not so much outside of ordinary rules as against them - appear in the practice of reporters, they may be classified as follows:

114. (a.) The use of the r hook as a w hook in certain cases where the w hook is, according to rule, inadmissible, as in the instance just given, where mr is treated as if it were wmb, so that it may be used to represent we may be.

115. (b.) The double-lengthing of mb to add thr,

as in the phrase you may be there

notwithstanding the fact that, according to strict rule, double length mb means mbr or mpr, not mb-thr.

116. (c.) The double-lengthing of ing to add thr,

as in the phrase wrong their

notwithstanding the fact, that according to strict rule, double-length ing means nkr or ngr, not ing-thr.

117. (d.) The dropping of an initial hook in the midst of a phrase in such a way that vr

takes in fact the form of w

though still read vr, as in the phrase it is very important

; that mr

takes in fact the form of mp, though still read mr, as in the phrase much more

that thr

takes in fact the form of z

though still read thr, as in the phrase he is therefore

118. (e.) The use of the r hook as if it were you, as in the phrases do you say

which you do

you shall

(Sanctioned by Graham, not by Pitman.)

119. (f.) The use of an apparent n hook as a "brief w" sign for what or would, as in the phrases of what

and would

(Sanctioned by Graham,

not by Pitman.)

120. (g.) The inversion of you, we, were and would,

in such phrases as when you do

there were many

(Sanctioned by Graham, not by Pitman.)

121. (h.) The use of an l hook for a w hook where the w hook is not practicable, as when

and,

are written for we can and we could. (Sanctioned by Graham, not by Pitman.)

(Further illustrations of the principles of "Variation," together with exercises for making them familiar to the pupil, will be found at appropriate places in later chapters.)